patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:55:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:07:57 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:46:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:34:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:37:27 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On4/10/22 10:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Do atomic clocks, indeed all electronically based clocks, increase
>>>>>>>>> their tick rate with decreasing electrostatic field?
>>>>>>>> No. Because every atomic clock is contained inside a closed, metallic
>>>>>>>> box that shields it from external electrostatic fields. Most designs
>>>>>>>> would not work without it. Ditto for other types of electronic clocks.
>>>>>>>>> It is a well known fact that the earth's electrostatic field near its
>>>>>>>>> surface has a value from 100 to 300 volts per meter. [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is irrelevant, as is the related potential energy, because a clock
>>>>>>>> always ticks at its usual (intrinsic) rate. The gravitational redshift
>>>>>>>> and gravitational "time dilation" are due to the way signals and clocks
>>>>>>>> are measured, and do not have anything to do with any "change" in the
>>>>>>>> clock's tick rate. The effect on measurement is related to the metric of
>>>>>>>> spacetime and the clock's trajectory; it is independent of any
>>>>>>>> electromagnetic field (except insofar as the EM field affects the
>>>>>>>> metric). Here on earth, and for astronomy in general, the energy density
>>>>>>>> of the EM field is so tiny that the effect on the metric is unmeasurably
>>>>>>>> small compared to that of mass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>>>> Tom Roberts, you are a lousy logician because your answers always
>>>>>>> assume exactly that which what you are trying to prove. The only useful
>>>>>>> comment in your wordy (and nearly worthless) reply is the one about the
>>>>>>> Faraday cage in which an atomic clock resides--if not it's own
>>>>>>> instrument case then the satellite's metallic skin in which it flies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This suggests yet another test for the Dolan Atomic Clock hypothesis.
>>>>>>> Do side by side comparisons with a standard enclosed clock and nearly
>>>>>>> naked one. There are a plethora of phenomenon occurring in an atomic
>>>>>>> clock, any one of which could be affected by changing electrical potential.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
>>>>>>> claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
>>>>>>> between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very good
>>>>>>> reason. You might want to check my calculations for the difference in
>>>>>>> divergence of the earth's gravitational field for points near the
>>>>>>> surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational field near the surface
>>>>>>> of the earth is indistinguishable from the constant field produced by
>>>>>>> an infinite plane. So there can be no detectable time dilation, as
>>>>>>> Bodkin claims, between the top of a step ladder and the surface of the earth.
>>>>>> What about Voyager 1 and 2's clock rates? Did they continue to increase
>>>>>> beyond 38 usec/day as they increased their distances from the earth and
>>>>>> sun? That should have been quite evident long before their nukular
>>>>>> batteries gave out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then there's perhaps the biggest problem of all with the reputed
>>>>> detection of time dilation by means of atomic light wave clocks:
>>>>> dishonesty and fraud along with a dash of incompetence and stupidity.
>>>> That’s fine. If you want to harbor distrust of science in general, that’s
>>>> up to you. If so, why are you here?
>>>
>>> A distrust of the prevailing science is the sine qua non of all true scientific advance.
>> This is a bit silly if you think about it. If everything in science were
>> doubted then science would have zero cumulative gain. Every step forward
>> would be dismissed. Scientific knowledge gains over the centuries. How
>> would you explain that progress if everything were untrusted?
>>> It was distrust of the guru Aristotle that impelled Galileo to schlep two
>>> cannon balls to the top of the tower of Pisa. It was distrust of guru
>>> Aristotle that compelled Pasteur to plug the neck of a broth pot with cotton.
>> This is something different. Aristotle did not think by the scientific
>> method. What Galileo and Pasteur and others brought to the table was
>> consulting nature through experiment, where Aristotle and other Hellenists
>> analyzed by the mind alone. In consulting nature, the premise is that
>> nature is going to behave the same if we experiment today or experiment a
>> century from now. This is why the cumulative body of experimental evidence
>> is so important in science, not just what you happen to look at today.
>
> Preposterous! What we have here, Ladies & Gents, Trans's & Fluids, is a
> real example of a troglodyte pre-Kuhnzian science enthusiast in Bodkin.
>
> Bodkin, if I go back to a chapter-by-chapter work-through of Spacetime
> Physics with you, will you agree to a chapter-by-chapter work-through of
> Structures with me?

Absolutely.

>>>
>>> And it was distrust of Einstein that drove William Wallace Campbell to
>>> the banks of the Colombia River to be the first to disprove that
>>> starlight could be bent by an eclipsed sun.
>>>
>>> [ I fear I was too hard on Roberts. I thank him for his observation
>>> concerning faraday cages. [ Is Dono ill? He is usually baying like a coyote by now.] ]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This from Wiki:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online
>>>>> questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers
>>>>> have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results
>>>>> (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and
>>>>> engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental
>>>>> scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to
>>>>> reproduce their own experiments. However, less than 20% had been
>>>>> contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The
>>>>> survey found that less than 31% of researchers believe that failure to
>>>>> reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong,
>>>>> although 52% do agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most
>>>>> researchers said that they still trust the published literature.[5][49]"
>>>>>
>>>>> So Bodkin and Paparios may simply be victims of a publish or parish fairy
>>>>> tale culture in post-modern science.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:36:45 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> The Dolan Imbecility is easily tested by operating an atomic clock at various distance from an Van de moo...oops...Van de Graaf generator.

Dumbestfuk,

GR correctly models situations where an electric charge is present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner%E2%80%93Nordstr%C3%B6m_metric

On 4/11/2022 3:56 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 2:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:04:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 1:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
>>>> claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
>>>> between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very
>>>> good reason. You might want to check my calculations for the
>>>> difference in divergence of the earth's gravitational field for
>>>> points near the surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational
>>>> field near the surface of the earth is indistinguishable from the
>>>> constant field produced by an infinite plane. So there can be no
>>>> detectable time dilation, as Bodkin claims, between the top of a
>>>> step ladder and the surface of the earth.
>>> Looks like you don't understand the difference between gravitational
>>> field strength and gravitational potential. The field strength near
>>> earth's surface is nearly that of an infinite plane, but time dilation
>>> is due to the differences in gravitational _potential_. Think of the
>>> gravitational potential like the potential energy (due to gravity) of a
>>> brick at the top of the ladder and at the bottom of the ladder. Think
>>> of what happens if the brick at the top of the ladder is released and
>>> allowed to fall. Does the result depend on the field strength being the
>>> same at the top and bottom of the ladder?
>>>
>>> How can you claim there can be no gravitational time dilation if you
>>> don't even know the first thing about it?
>> Your argument is not without merit, Moroney.  But your argument also
>> applies to electrical potential.  And electric potential is no
>> respecter of Faraday cages.  So do I win this one against you and
>> Roberts?
>
> Of course not. Nobody has claimed gravitational potential causes time
> dilation.

Should be: "Nobody has claimed electrostatic potential causes time
dilation" of course.

Also electric potential DOES respect Faraday cages. In fact that's how
van de Graaf generators work. The charged top electrode, which is a
Faraday cage, is charged from the INSIDE of the cage.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 8:56:51 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 3:56 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 4/11/2022 2:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 11:04:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> On 4/11/2022 1:34 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Here is something for you to sink your teeth into Tom Roberts. The
> >>>> claim that the new lightwave atomic clocks can detect time curvature
> >>>> between a few inches of altitude are preposterous, and for a very
> >>>> good reason. You might want to check my calculations for the
> >>>> difference in divergence of the earth's gravitational field for
> >>>> points near the surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational
> >>>> field near the surface of the earth is indistinguishable from the
> >>>> constant field produced by an infinite plane. So there can be no
> >>>> detectable time dilation, as Bodkin claims, between the top of a
> >>>> step ladder and the surface of the earth.
> >>> Looks like you don't understand the difference between gravitational
> >>> field strength and gravitational potential. The field strength near
> >>> earth's surface is nearly that of an infinite plane, but time dilation
> >>> is due to the differences in gravitational _potential_. Think of the
> >>> gravitational potential like the potential energy (due to gravity) of a
> >>> brick at the top of the ladder and at the bottom of the ladder. Think
> >>> of what happens if the brick at the top of the ladder is released and
> >>> allowed to fall. Does the result depend on the field strength being the
> >>> same at the top and bottom of the ladder?
> >>>
> >>> How can you claim there can be no gravitational time dilation if you
> >>> don't even know the first thing about it?
> >> Your argument is not without merit, Moroney. But your argument also
> >> applies to electrical potential. And electric potential is no
> >> respecter of Faraday cages. So do I win this one against you and
> >> Roberts?
> >
> > Of course not. Nobody has claimed gravitational potential causes time
> > dilation.
> Should be: "Nobody has claimed electrostatic potential causes time
> dilation" of course.
>
> Also electric potential DOES respect Faraday cages. In fact that's how
> van de Graaf generators work. The charged top electrode, which is a
> Faraday cage, is charged from the INSIDE of the cage.

It is possible to correctly model the effects of the presence of an electric charge by replacing the Schwarzschild solution with the Reissner-Nordstrom one. So, Pattycakes gets to eat shit. Once again.

On 4/11/22 6:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> What kind of clocks were on these probes? Were they built to be
> sensitive to gravitational time dilation?

No clock is "sensitive to gravitational time dilation", or any other
type of "time dilation". But SIGNALS from clocks are subject to the way
the time interval between them is measured, which is the source of all
types of "time dilation" -- that is inescapable.

[To measure the time interval between two signals, a clock
must project the interval between the signals onto itself.
That depends on the (null) trajectories of the signals,
the trajectory of the clock, and the spacetime metric at
the location of the measurement.]

Tom Roberts

On 4/11/22 1:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> electric potential is no respecter of Faraday cages.

This is not true. In terms of an external electric potential, everything
inside a Faraday cage is at the same potential. That is, the presence of
the cage distorts the external potential to make this happen; it does so
independent of what is inside.

Ask yourself: given the earth's electrostatic potential of several
hundred Volts/meter, why is it that when I hold the probes of a
voltmeter a meter apart vertically, it still measures zero?

Tom Roberts

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 2:36:28 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:

<snip>

> No clock is "sensitive to gravitational time dilation", or any other
> type of "time dilation". But SIGNALS from clocks are subject to the way
> the time interval between them is measured, which is the source of all
> types of "time dilation" -- that is inescapable.
>
> [To measure the time interval between two signals, a clock
> must project the interval between the signals onto itself.
> That depends on the (null) trajectories of the signals,
> the trajectory of the clock, and the spacetime metric at
> the location of the measurement.]

But this is plain heresy, coming from a pure breed relativist.

Then, it comes to be that t' = t for every clock, yet Δt' ≠ Δt when signals are exchanged!

This means that "proper time" doesn't exist by itself, and that only manifestates indirectly when any two given clocks
exchange data with electromagnetic signaling?

Or did you think about signaling by using gravitational wave carriers?

Could you clarify this?

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/11/22 6:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> What kind of clocks were on these probes? Were they built to be
>> sensitive to gravitational time dilation?
>
> No clock is "sensitive to gravitational time dilation", or any other
> type of "time dilation". But SIGNALS from clocks are subject to the way
> the time interval between them is measured, which is the source of all
> types of "time dilation" -- that is inescapable.

Well yes. So said differently, were the clock timing signals of sufficient
precision on Voyager1/2 to allow for the detection of time dilation?

>
> [To measure the time interval between two signals, a clock
> must project the interval between the signals onto itself.
> That depends on the (null) trajectories of the signals,
> the trajectory of the clock, and the spacetime metric at
> the location of the measurement.]
>
> Tom Roberts
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/11/22 1:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > electric potential is no respecter of Faraday cages.
> This is not true. In terms of an external electric potential, everything
> inside a Faraday cage is at the same potential. That is, the presence of
> the cage distorts the external potential to make this happen; it does so
> independent of what is inside.
>
> Ask yourself: given the earth's electrostatic potential of several
> hundred Volts/meter, why is it that when I hold the probes of a
> voltmeter a meter apart vertically, it still measures zero?
>
> Tom Roberts
I have asked myself this, Tom Roberts. I have also placed voltmeter probes at shoe level and above my head to prove it's not true. I was skeptical of this claim two seconds after I first read it in Feynman.

I have also asked myself--given the 69% rate of reporting non-reproducible experimental results by physicists--has anyone other than the initial investigators actually observed any atomic clock slow by 38 usec/day? Other than the un-reproduced light atomic clock results in the last couple of years, this claim appears to have been tested only once, back in 1978. But it was not important enough to get incorporated into modern GPS algorithms as all GPS birds are actively steered back to 1 usec/day from running either too fast or too slow.

The famous 38 usec/day claim is now exposed as just more science folklore. Like Eddington's 1.75 arcseconds. Both remain un-reproduced values despite numerous attempts to do so. So where are the claims & cries of falsification? This is all explained in Structures.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 3:36:36 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:

<snip>

> I have also asked myself--given the 69% rate of reporting non-reproducible experimental results by physicists--has anyone other than the initial investigators actually observed any atomic clock slow by 38 usec/day? Other than the un-reproduced light atomic clock results in the last couple of years, this claim appears to have been tested only once, back in 1978. But it was not important enough to get incorporated into modern GPS algorithms as all GPS birds are actively steered back to 1 usec/day from running either too fast or too slow.
>
> The famous 38 usec/day claim is now exposed as just more science folklore.. Like Eddington's 1.75 arcseconds. Both remain un-reproduced values despite numerous attempts to do so. So where are the claims & cries of falsification? This is all explained in Structures.

CALCULATED 38.5 usec/day, not measured.

And this calculation based on the stupid Hilbert-Schwarzschild metric that was published in 1917, 105 years ago.

Such metric contemplate an universe VOID OF MATTER AND ENERGY, except for a single point-like, non-charged, non-rotating
mass that represented the Sun. Even Mercury (its first application) was a TEST PARTICLE with no mass.

But PROPAGANDA says, at every written book on GR, that such metric is the real deal and that explain everything because it has
embedded special relativity formulations.

Then you have people like Dono, who promptly wrote that Reissner-Nordstrom metric is better, because it includes an electric
charge on such point-like, non rotating mass.

Weird that Dono didn't claim that Kerr–Newman metric is better, because it adds to Hilbert-Schwarzschild point-like mass
charge and rotation.

And this is all that GR has to offer: 4 solutions of the 200+ non-linear equations that comprises GR set for vacuum.

Going beyond such simplistic solutions is impossible with current mathematics.

But you HAVE TO BELIEVE everything the useless eaters tell to you, because they are SCIENTISTS and you are not.

PROPAGANDA.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 4/11/22 1:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> electric potential is no respecter of Faraday cages.
>> This is not true. In terms of an external electric potential, everything
>> inside a Faraday cage is at the same potential. That is, the presence of
>> the cage distorts the external potential to make this happen; it does so
>> independent of what is inside.
>>
>> Ask yourself: given the earth's electrostatic potential of several
>> hundred Volts/meter, why is it that when I hold the probes of a
>> voltmeter a meter apart vertically, it still measures zero?
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> I have asked myself this, Tom Roberts. I have also placed voltmeter
> probes at shoe level and above my head to prove it's not true. I was
> skeptical of this claim two seconds after I first read it in Feynman.
>
> I have also asked myself--given the 69% rate of reporting
> non-reproducible experimental results by physicists--has anyone other
> than the initial investigators actually observed any atomic clock slow by
> 38 usec/day? Other than the un-reproduced light atomic clock results in
> the last couple of years, this claim appears to have been tested only
> once, back in 1978. But it was not important enough to get incorporated
> into modern GPS algorithms as all GPS birds are actively steered back to
> 1 usec/day from running either too fast or too slow.
>
> The famous 38 usec/day claim is now exposed as just more science
> folklore. Like Eddington's 1.75 arcseconds. Both remain un-reproduced
> values despite numerous attempts to do so. So where are the claims &
> cries of falsification? This is all explained in Structures.
>

Where are all the doubts about conservation of linear momentum? Of the
second law of thermodynamics? Where are your doubts about the Dirac
equation?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> But you HAVE TO BELIEVE everything the useless eaters tell to you,
> because they are SCIENTISTS and you are not.
>

Heck no. Go read up on the physics yourself. If you feel the need to do
personal experiments to validate, by all means do that.

But what good does it do to stand off to one side and holler, “I don’t
believe you”?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 11:56:31 AM UTC-7, dumbestfuck Richard Hertz took a big swallow of shit:

> Weird that Dono didn't claim that Kerr–Newman metric is better,

Dumbestfuck,

It is the Reissner-Nordstrom solution that accounts for electric potential. How is your dinner with Pattycakes?

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 4/11/22 1:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> electric potential is no respecter of Faraday cages.
> >> This is not true. In terms of an external electric potential, everything
> >> inside a Faraday cage is at the same potential. That is, the presence of
> >> the cage distorts the external potential to make this happen; it does so
> >> independent of what is inside.
> >>
> >> Ask yourself: given the earth's electrostatic potential of several
> >> hundred Volts/meter, why is it that when I hold the probes of a
> >> voltmeter a meter apart vertically, it still measures zero?
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> > I have asked myself this, Tom Roberts. I have also placed voltmeter
> > probes at shoe level and above my head to prove it's not true. I was
> > skeptical of this claim two seconds after I first read it in Feynman.
> >
> > I have also asked myself--given the 69% rate of reporting
> > non-reproducible experimental results by physicists--has anyone other
> > than the initial investigators actually observed any atomic clock slow by
> > 38 usec/day? Other than the un-reproduced light atomic clock results in
> > the last couple of years, this claim appears to have been tested only
> > once, back in 1978. But it was not important enough to get incorporated
> > into modern GPS algorithms as all GPS birds are actively steered back to
> > 1 usec/day from running either too fast or too slow.
> >
> > The famous 38 usec/day claim is now exposed as just more science
> > folklore. Like Eddington's 1.75 arcseconds. Both remain un-reproduced
> > values despite numerous attempts to do so. So where are the claims &
> > cries of falsification? This is all explained in Structures.
> >
> Where are all the doubts about conservation of linear momentum? Of the
> second law of thermodynamics? Where are your doubts about the Dirac
> equation?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
No doubts in the first two cases. They are reproduced 10,000 times a week in physics and chem 101 labs. About Dirac I do not feign hypotheses.

On 4/11/2022 2:36 PM, patdolan wrote:

> The famous 38 usec/day claim is now exposed as just more science folklore.

How can it be "folklore" when it has been measured? And it is
compensated for every time the nice lady on the GPS app tells you to
turn left in 200 meters?

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 4/11/22 6:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> What kind of clocks were on these probes? Were they built to be
> >> sensitive to gravitational time dilation?
> >
> > No clock is "sensitive to gravitational time dilation", or any other
> > type of "time dilation". But SIGNALS from clocks are subject to the way
> > the time interval between them is measured, which is the source of all
> > types of "time dilation" -- that is inescapable.
>
> Well yes. So said differently, were the clock timing signals of sufficient
> precision on Voyager1/2 to allow for the detection of time dilation?

No. They carry quartz clocks.
A next generation of spacecraft might carry atomic clocks,
for yet an order of magnitude increase in solar system accuracy,

Jan

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 20:36:26 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 4/11/22 6:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> What kind of clocks were on these probes? Were they built to be
> >> sensitive to gravitational time dilation?
> >
> > No clock is "sensitive to gravitational time dilation", or any other
> > type of "time dilation". But SIGNALS from clocks are subject to the way
> > the time interval between them is measured, which is the source of all
> > types of "time dilation" -- that is inescapable.
> Well yes. So said differently, were the clock timing signals of sufficient
> precision on Voyager1/2 to allow for the detection of time dilation?

SOrry, poor idiot, but - anyone can check GPS: clocks
"detecting" your time dilation idiocy don't have sufficient
precision and have to be corrected.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:15:07 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 2:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
>
> > The famous 38 usec/day claim is now exposed as just more science folklore.
> How can it be "folklore" when it has been measured? And it is
> compensated for every time the nice lady on the GPS app tells you to
> turn left in 200 meters?
Measured by non-skeptical Einstein enthusiasts such as yourself. But never reproduced. This from one of your own links:

"At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO)."

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 11:56:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 3:36:36 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I have also asked myself--given the 69% rate of reporting non-reproducible experimental results by physicists--has anyone other than the initial investigators actually observed any atomic clock slow by 38 usec/day? Other than the un-reproduced light atomic clock results in the last couple of years, this claim appears to have been tested only once, back in 1978. But it was not important enough to get incorporated into modern GPS algorithms as all GPS birds are actively steered back to 1 usec/day from running either too fast or too slow.
> >
> > The famous 38 usec/day claim is now exposed as just more science folklore. Like Eddington's 1.75 arcseconds. Both remain un-reproduced values despite numerous attempts to do so. So where are the claims & cries of falsification? This is all explained in Structures.
> CALCULATED 38.5 usec/day, not measured.
>
> And this calculation based on the stupid Hilbert-Schwarzschild metric that was published in 1917, 105 years ago.
>
> Such metric contemplate an universe VOID OF MATTER AND ENERGY, except for a single point-like, non-charged, non-rotating
> mass that represented the Sun. Even Mercury (its first application) was a TEST PARTICLE with no mass.
>
> But PROPAGANDA says, at every written book on GR, that such metric is the real deal and that explain everything because it has
> embedded special relativity formulations.
>
> Then you have people like Dono, who promptly wrote that Reissner-Nordstrom metric is better, because it includes an electric
> charge on such point-like, non rotating mass.
>
> Weird that Dono didn't claim that Kerr–Newman metric is better, because it adds to Hilbert-Schwarzschild point-like mass
> charge and rotation.
>
Incredible!!!
> And this is all that GR has to offer: 4 solutions of the 200+ non-linear equations that comprises GR set for vacuum.
>
All that and GR still can't spit out 9.81 Newtons for a 1 kilogram weight sitting on a tabletop!
> Going beyond such simplistic solutions is impossible with current mathematics.
>
> But you HAVE TO BELIEVE everything the useless eaters tell to you, because they are SCIENTISTS and you are not.
>
> PROPAGANDA.

> "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO)."

Cretionoid

The steering happens AFTER the 38 us GR compliant CORRECTION.
This means that the basic GPS correct functionality IS the test. Every second of your miserable existence.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:38:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO)."
> Cretionoid
>
> The steering happens AFTER the 38 us GR compliant CORRECTION.
> This means that the basic GPS correct functionality IS the test. Every second of your miserable existence.

There must be a thousand variable that throw the atomic clocks off far more than a piddling 38 usec/day. Flying out of the Earth's shadow into the brilliant sunshine for one. You have to automatically recalibrate a GPS atomic clock for the same reasons your car's onboard computer re-tunes your engine and adjusts the fuel injectors and sparking.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:43:25 PM UTC-7, cretinoid pat dolan ate some more shit:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:38:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO)."
> > Cretionoid
> >
> > The steering happens AFTER the 38 us GR compliant CORRECTION.
> > This means that the basic GPS correct functionality IS the test. Every second of your miserable existence.
> There must be a thousand variable that throw the atomic clocks off far more than a piddling 38 usec/day.

There isn't. So, keep eating shit.

On 4/11/2022 3:30 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:15:07 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 2:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>> The famous 38 usec/day claim is now exposed as just more science folklore.
>> How can it be "folklore" when it has been measured? And it is
>> compensated for every time the nice lady on the GPS app tells you to
>> turn left in 200 meters?
> Measured by non-skeptical Einstein enthusiasts such as yourself. But never reproduced. This from one of your own links:
>
> "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO)."

That's the best you can do, quotemine something that does not even apply
to the initial prototype experiment? Even if it did, they are
adjustments in the 10s of nanoseconds range while GR time dilation is
38,000 nanoseconds each and every day?

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> The famous 38 usec/day claim is now exposed as just more science
> folklore. Like Eddington's 1.75 arcseconds. Both remain un-reproduced
> values despite numerous attempts to do so. So where are the claims &
> cries of falsification? This is all explained in Structures.
>

How quickly you forget that told you you yesterday.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/22 1:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> electric potential is no respecter of Faraday cages.
>>>> This is not true. In terms of an external electric potential, everything
>>>> inside a Faraday cage is at the same potential. That is, the presence of
>>>> the cage distorts the external potential to make this happen; it does so
>>>> independent of what is inside.
>>>>
>>>> Ask yourself: given the earth's electrostatic potential of several
>>>> hundred Volts/meter, why is it that when I hold the probes of a
>>>> voltmeter a meter apart vertically, it still measures zero?
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>> I have asked myself this, Tom Roberts. I have also placed voltmeter
>>> probes at shoe level and above my head to prove it's not true. I was
>>> skeptical of this claim two seconds after I first read it in Feynman.
>>>
>>> I have also asked myself--given the 69% rate of reporting
>>> non-reproducible experimental results by physicists--has anyone other
>>> than the initial investigators actually observed any atomic clock slow by
>>> 38 usec/day? Other than the un-reproduced light atomic clock results in
>>> the last couple of years, this claim appears to have been tested only
>>> once, back in 1978. But it was not important enough to get incorporated
>>> into modern GPS algorithms as all GPS birds are actively steered back to
>>> 1 usec/day from running either too fast or too slow.
>>>
>>> The famous 38 usec/day claim is now exposed as just more science
>>> folklore. Like Eddington's 1.75 arcseconds. Both remain un-reproduced
>>> values despite numerous attempts to do so. So where are the claims &
>>> cries of falsification? This is all explained in Structures.
>>>
>> Where are all the doubts about conservation of linear momentum? Of the
>> second law of thermodynamics? Where are your doubts about the Dirac
>> equation?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> No doubts in the first two cases. They are reproduced 10,000 times a
> week in physics and chem 101 labs.

And so you believe it if and only if it’s a freshman observation? Why?

> About Dirac I do not feign hypotheses.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables